也说“回到傅斯年”

Also on “Going Back to Fu Sinian”

自宋代以来,人们便将学术分为"义理"与"考据"两途。就理想状态而言,当然应当是义理与考据并重;但在实践中,大多数学者都是偏重一途,而且往往以自己的治学旨趣作为评价标准,从而发生尖锐的观点对立。就总体性的人文社会科学而言,"考据"与"义理"都是认识人类社会的重要途径,"义理"的功用或许更为强大。但具体到史学研究,虽然因学者个性和研究内容的差异,既可以偏重"考据",也可以偏重"义理",但"考据"无疑具有更加基础性的地位。也就是说,在史学研究中,"考据"不应当是与"义理"并列的两个途径,而应当成为所有史学研究者都必须具备的自觉意识。

Ever since the Song Dynasty, academic study has been divided into argumentation and textual criticism. Idealistically speaking, they are of equal significance, but actually, most scholars have their own favor of the two and often take their own academic interests as evaluation standards, thus producing sharp oppositions of their viewpoints. In terms of general humanities, both argumentation and textual criticism are important ways of understanding human society. The function of argumentation is probably greater than that of textual criticism. In particular terms of historical study, there exist differences of scholars＇ personality and research content, they can either prefer argumentation or textual research, but textual research is apparently on a more foundational ground. In other words, textual criticism in historical study is not of equal importance with argumentation. It must be a kind of self-consciousness of all historical researchers.